Next summer we’ll get our first look at what’s expected to be a whopping six-film King Arthur series from Guy Ritchie. Knights Of The Round Table: King Arthur will star Charlie Hunnam as Arthur, with Jude Law, Eric Bana, Astrid Berges-Frisbey, and Djimon Hounsou also set to appear. Oddly enough, the film’s page on IMDb describes the plot as “the classic Sir Lancelot story,” though no casting for Lancelot has been announced yet. It may be that as the first of a planned six films, this will be something of an origin story in which Arthur and a mysterious Lancelot first cross paths. That being said, we don’t know a great deal about what this movie will look like. Proving that point is a recent story at VC Post, which contradicted the IMDb synopsis. The piece stated that this will be a story about an orphaned Arthur discovering his royal lineage after acquiring the sword Excalibur.

No matter which direction the plot takes, Knights Of The Round Table is an exciting project. And while the marketing campaign hasn’t quite started up yet, it seems as if the world of news and entertainment is already setting the stage for the big-screen comeback of fiction’s most famous knights. Pay attention and you’ll notice that medieval and knightly themes are suddenly everywhere.

Perhaps most noteworthy is the bizarre account that recently surfaced regarding a theory that ancient monks invented the King Arthur legend, which has never been clearly classified as myth or actual history. Some believe (as the 2004 King Arthur film suggested) that Arthurian legend stems from a Roman general stationed in Britain when it was an outpost of the Roman empire. Others believe the whole story is pure fiction. But Discovery recently wrote that a clan of medieval monks made up King Arthur legends to make their abbey appear mystical, and to raise cash. The same story says the monks decided to “draw on Arthurian legends” by creating a fake burial site, however, so the implication is that some version of King Arthur existed before these monks. They apparently just invented new stories.

It’s kind of amazing that King Arthur would surface in the news in such a major way roughly eight months before Ritchie’s film is to debut. But beyond this story, as mentioned, knight themes seem to be making a comeback in general. Perhaps the clearest indication of all is in the Internet gaming community, where knights, kings, and castles have come to dominate online casinos of late. As a way to attract new players, Gala Bingo offers VIP bonuses that even include access to an online “champagne room,” and once you’re actually into the games, you’ll find a lineup heavily influenced by medieval themes. Wild Knights: King’s Ransom, Kingdom Of Fortune, White Knight, and even Merlin are among the titles, all of which fit nicely into the lead up to Ritchie’s film.

And looking past both news and gaming, there’s the coming season of Game Of Thrones. Its first trailer was recently released, and it will essentially occupy the season leading right up to the summer release of Ritchie’s film. The two aren’t related in any way, of course, but it’s a fair argument that Game Of Thrones has made medieval adventure and warfare popular again for a whole new generation of movie, TV, and literature lovers. The upcoming season, in that way, will set the table perfectly for King Arthur: Knights Of The Round Table.

In all of those examples, there’s not a single piece of direct marketing for the Ritchie movie. But if nothing else, the film appears to have good timing, as the world seems to naturally be bringing knights to the forefront of our attention.

First a disclaimer… I completely understand the hype and that everyone knows (well I actually don’t think a lot of the general public does know this, its not your fault) that Alejandro Gonzales Inarritu (Biutiful) is a favorite when it comes to award shows. Should Biutiful been given the awards and respect it deserved? Yes, but that doesn’t mean that digitally engineering a movie as one continuous shot deserves to be a front-runner for the Oscars.

Birdman is a really good movie and Michael Keaton (The Other Guys) was probably the best person to be at helm. As the first good Batman, Keaton’s past (even though he hasn’t fallen into normality) fits the role of portraying a washed up superhero named “Birdman”. With that being said, he does a great job in this role and the chemistry between him and the rest of the cast make me believe that this actually may be the best acting ensemble of the year.

The problem is, Edward Norton (The Grand Budapest Hotel), Zach Galifanakis (The Hangover), Emma Stone (Easy A), Naomi Watts (The Impossible) and Keaton have no satisfying place to go at the end of the film. They produce one the smartest comedies of the year (just behind The Grand Budapest Hotel) and honestly may even be one of the best comedies since 2012 (beat again by Wes Anderson’s Moonrise Kingdom). For all I know, Paul Thomas Anderson’s Inherent Vice (also a comedy) trumps it (and it probably does).

Therefore, if you want one reason to see the film, it shouldn’t be because of the hype, or the Oscar praise, but since Innaritu is a genius (regardless of what I am saying), the film was shot in a way that it was one continuous shot – so there’s that.

This movie has Acamedy Award porn written all over it – except for the fact that it won’t win (maybe a BAFTA though if the Brits don’t think Boyhood is good enough and they don’t fall into the trap of thinking Birdman is better than it is – I’ll get to that). Tackling multiple issues at once, The Imitation Game is as genius as Benedict Cumberbatch (Star Trek Into Darkness) portrayal of Alan Turing.

Since I am a little frustrated as I write this, the first thing we are shown is that there are only a handful of people in the world that are completely passionate to a fault about what they do. This causes an unwavering drive to solve the big problem instead of creating a temporary fix for whatever issue is being addressed. You can’t just say you are the best in the world at something because of your past achievement, you must continuously prove to yourself that you are the best.

Alan Turing knew what his purpose in life was – to end the war and he stopped at nothing to do so. Well he was a very anti-social and standoffish at the beginning once people realized his legacy of intelligence, people weren’t so quick to judge him and he made true friends. Its really sad, but world peace will never be achieved if people continuously dislike people who are different from them.

Along with intelligence in his passioned subject, Alan Turing also found that his sexual preferences could get him sent to jail, or even killed. This is the most ridiculous

thing ever believed by anyone – if you can’t accept somebody for who they are, you can’t accept yourself.

Congratulations world… you killed one of the most brilliant people to ever live. I wonder what he would have done, if he had the opportunity to live even longer than he did.

Make better choices and fight for something you are passionate about that helps the world, not something that harms the people in it.

I honestly did not know this was a remake of an old James Caan movie until reading some reviews after watching the movie. Therefore, I am very excited to see the original and see why it warranted a remake. The Gamble is not a good movie and Mark Whalberg deserves better. If I was in the business of writing one sentence reviews, it would sound something like that.

The Gambler was almost a good movie about five different times, but then it went in some weird direction with sub-par acting and even worse writing. Not even the unique cinematography could save the movie. There were times that Marky Mark almost took us places too, but the whole concept of the movie was lost between an intense character study of a gambling addict and an over dramatized Hollywood movie. Marky Mark is supposed to be likeable, but instead he is as uninteresting as the amount of botox in his character’s mother’s face.

The plot is all over the place – ranging from trying to state some really philosophical monologues about successful people in a college classroom setting, to have three different gangsters after Marky Mark’s head. I am at a loss to the whereabouts of a lot of the scenes, because the writers seemed to not know where they wanted different interactions to take place, so the director was like WTF?

Yeah, it was fun watching him get his ass kicked at gambling due to his greed, but the problem is he came out on top in the end. I am sorry, but everyone lies about how much they have won at a casino, the only winners are those people that never step in one (well and John Goodman in the case of this movie).

I have never thought the Night at the Museum movies were high quality movies. The coloring and cinematography itself is all over the place with very few well thought out shots when it comes to the mise-en-scene and depth of focus. There are some really cool special effects in a couple sequences, but from a visual standpoint the film seems like it was rushed together.

Blah. Blah. Blah. I know you honestly couldn’t care less about the mise-en-scene of the film and if you’re like me, you only saw the film because you like Ben Stiller (The Secret Life of Walter Mitty), wanted to see Robin Williams (World’s Greatest Dad) and wanted a funny, lighthearted film to enjoy over the holidays.

The story was terrible, but the audience doesn’t care about the story (neither does the studio, they just want to meet their revenue quota for the year). The motivation for the franchise was established with the release of the first movie being less than adequate for a worth while series of movies. Lets get a bunch of big actors/actresses, have them dress up as different famous people throughout history, crack some jokes, create some mayhem and have from.

The caveman version of Ben Stiller may have stolen the show, or at least made me laugh the most. He proves that everyone needs to losen up and enjoy some clean dumb humor. Not all comedies need to be about killing an evil dictator. Everyone needs to lighten up and have some fun.